Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax

44 ITR 689Supreme Court of India1962#2273 most cited

What is Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

To determine if an expenditure is capital or revenue, one must consider the nature of the business, the expenditure, the right acquired, and their inter-relation. The concept of 'enduring benefit' is descriptive and relative, not synonymous with perpetual.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Abdul Kayoom v CIT · K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom · 44 ITR 689 · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit test · nature of business · nature of right acquired · section 10(2)(xv) · section 10(2)

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitrelinquishment of rightsection 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feesection 2(31)slump salesection 51going concernsection 40a(2)(b)enduring benefitsection 10(2)

Judgments citing Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

…ital in nature and not revenue relying on the decision in the case of Sitalpur Sugar Works v CIT 49 ITR 160 (SC) which was with respect to expenditure incurred in dismantling and refitting existing plant at a better site and in the case of Abdul Khayoom v CIT 44 ITR 689 (SC) wherein the issue was in respect to payment made for acquiring monopoly right over a long period of time from producer of goods. 7.2. It is respectfully submitted that both these decisions deals with totally different facts and ratio thereof cannot be applied to Appellant's case. 7.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the submissions…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1995/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

…e and not definite Page No. 24 ITA NOs. 1994 & 1995/MUM/2023 CO NOs. 109 & 110/MUM/2023 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and are relative in meaning not synonymous with 'perpetual' or 'everlasting'. In the case of K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom Vs. CIT (SC) 44 ITR 689 it has been held that to decide whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature what is decisive is the nature of the business. the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired and their relation, inter se. 14.2 In its submission dated 15.02.2022 and during the course of VC the assessee has reiterated the arguments made in ea…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

…e and not definite Page No. 24 ITA NOs. 1994 & 1995/MUM/2023 CO NOs. 109 & 110/MUM/2023 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and are relative in meaning not synonymous with 'perpetual' or 'everlasting'. In the case of K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom Vs. CIT (SC) 44 ITR 689 it has been held that to decide whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature what is decisive is the nature of the business. the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired and their relation, inter se. 14.2 In its submission dated 15.02.2022 and during the course of VC the assessee has reiterated the arguments made in ea…

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…ances. In fact the trend of judicial decisions show a progressive liberal view on the concepts to treat many an item as revenue expenditure with regard to which a contrary conclusion could have been reached. Hidayathullah J. in the decision reported in [1962] 44 ITR 689 (SC)(K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT) held that each case depends on its own facts and close similarity between one case and another is not enough, even a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. Hidayatullah J. in the said decision, also observed as follows: “ …... What is decisive is the nature of business, the nature of the expenditure, t…

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1965/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

…tries, the assessee being one of the members of the said Federation. The Id. CIT(A) treated the amount in the nature of donation and capital in nature. Whether the amount is revenue or capital in nature, Honble Apex Court in K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT.44 ITR 689 (SC) held that each case depends on its own facts and close similarity between one case and another is not enough. even a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It was observed that what is decisive is the nature of business, the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired, and their relation inter se, and this is the only…

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

…tries, the assessee being one of the members of the said Federation. The Id. CIT(A) treated the amount in the nature of donation and capital in nature. Whether the amount is revenue or capital in nature, Honble Apex Court in K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT.44 ITR 689 (SC) held that each case depends on its own facts and close similarity between one case and another is not enough. even a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It was observed that what is decisive is the nature of business, the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired, and their relation inter se, and this is the only…

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…e 37 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 i) Assam Bengal Cement Co.Ltd vs CIT, 27 ITRT 34 (SC) ii) Bharat Colleries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iii) Pingle Industries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iv) KTMTM Abdul Kayoom vs CIT, 44 ITR 689 (SC) 48. Facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer noticed that in the profit and loss and account for the year ending 31.3.2015, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.5,31,69,709/- towards “compensatory afforestation charges”. However, he observed that in the previous year, no such expenses were claimed. Therefore, the AO required the asse…

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…e 37 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 i) Assam Bengal Cement Co.Ltd vs CIT, 27 ITRT 34 (SC) ii) Bharat Colleries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iii) Pingle Industries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iv) KTMTM Abdul Kayoom vs CIT, 44 ITR 689 (SC) 48. Facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer noticed that in the profit and loss and account for the year ending 31.3.2015, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.5,31,69,709/- towards “compensatory afforestation charges”. However, he observed that in the previous year, no such expenses were claimed. Therefore, the AO required the asse…

HITACHI METGLAS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5906/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Saleel Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR

…2015 · • ChandulalKeshavlal v. CIT: 38 ITR 601(SC) · • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) · DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (SC) · • Chelpark Company Ltd. v. CIT: 191 ITR 249 (Mad.) · • K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT: 44 ITR 689 (SC) · • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC) · • L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT: 125 ITR 293 (SC) · Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 81 ITR 754 (SC) · • M.K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 86 ITR 38 (SC) · • Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT: 62 ITR 566 (SC) · • CIT v. B.N. Elias & Co. (P.) Ltd.: 168 ITR 190 (Cal.) ·…

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1780/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 135Section 37Section 37(1)

…tries, the assessee being one of the members of the said Federation. The Id. CIT(A) treated the amount in the nature of donation and capital in nature. Whether the amount is revenue or capital in nature, Honble Apex Court in K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT.44 ITR 689 (SC) held that each case depends on its own facts and close similarity between one case and another is not enough. even a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It was observed that what is decisive is the nature of business, the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired, and their relation inter se, and this is the only…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

ITA/340/2014HC Karnataka18 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 35DSection 80J

…m. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI Vs. DILIP KUMAR & CO. (2018) 68 GST 239 as well as 'ABDUL KAYOOM Vs. CIT' 44 ITR 689 (SC) and 'ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD. Vs. CIT' 177 ITR 377 (SC). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which do not call for interference. It is further su…

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 473/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…e deposits to be got. We, therefore, hold that the yearly payment of Rs.96,000/- should be treated as revenue expenditure". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra.) followed another Supreme Court decision In the case of Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT [44 ITR 689(SC.)] wherein it has been held that It Is not the law in every case, that If an enduring advantage is obtained the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure, for n In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a manufactory is not a capital expenditure, It is a current expenditure, and does not become a capit…

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 472/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…e deposits to be got. We, therefore, hold that the yearly payment of Rs.96,000/- should be treated as revenue expenditure". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra.) followed another Supreme Court decision In the case of Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT [44 ITR 689(SC.)] wherein it has been held that It Is not the law in every case, that If an enduring advantage is obtained the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure, for n In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a manufactory is not a capital expenditure, It is a current expenditure, and does not become a capit…

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 471/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…e deposits to be got. We, therefore, hold that the yearly payment of Rs.96,000/- should be treated as revenue expenditure". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra.) followed another Supreme Court decision In the case of Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT [44 ITR 689(SC.)] wherein it has been held that It Is not the law in every case, that If an enduring advantage is obtained the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure, for n In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a manufactory is not a capital expenditure, It is a current expenditure, and does not become a capit…

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 470/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…e deposits to be got. We, therefore, hold that the yearly payment of Rs.96,000/- should be treated as revenue expenditure". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra.) followed another Supreme Court decision In the case of Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT [44 ITR 689(SC.)] wherein it has been held that It Is not the law in every case, that If an enduring advantage is obtained the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure, for n In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a manufactory is not a capital expenditure, It is a current expenditure, and does not become a capit…

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

ITA 312/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…e deposits to be got. We, therefore, hold that the yearly payment of Rs.96,000/- should be treated as revenue expenditure". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra.) followed another Supreme Court decision In the case of Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT [44 ITR 689(SC.)] wherein it has been held that It Is not the law in every case, that If an enduring advantage is obtained the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure, for n In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a manufactory is not a capital expenditure, It is a current expenditure, and does not become a capit…

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

ITA 310/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…e deposits to be got. We, therefore, hold that the yearly payment of Rs.96,000/- should be treated as revenue expenditure". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra.) followed another Supreme Court decision In the case of Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT [44 ITR 689(SC.)] wherein it has been held that It Is not the law in every case, that If an enduring advantage is obtained the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure, for n In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a manufactory is not a capital expenditure, It is a current expenditure, and does not become a capit…

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

ITA 309/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…e deposits to be got. We, therefore, hold that the yearly payment of Rs.96,000/- should be treated as revenue expenditure". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra.) followed another Supreme Court decision In the case of Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT [44 ITR 689(SC.)] wherein it has been held that It Is not the law in every case, that If an enduring advantage is obtained the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure, for n In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a manufactory is not a capital expenditure, It is a current expenditure, and does not become a capit…

M.S VIBHUTIGUDDA MINES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 2843/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.60/356-A, “Modi Bhavan” Of Income Tax, Hospet Road, Allipur, Circle – 1, ‘Aaykar Bhavan’ Bellary – 583 105. Staff Road, Fort, Pan : Aaacv 5851 D Bellary – 583 103. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…tries, the assessee being one of the members of the said Federation. The Id. CIT(A) treated the amount in the nature of donation and capital in nature. Whether the amount is revenue or capital in nature, Honble Apex Court in K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT.44 ITR 689 (SC) held that each case depends on its own facts and close similarity between one case and another is not enough. even a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It was observed that what is decisive is the nature of business, the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired, and their relation inter se, and this is the only…

THE DUPTY, CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI RAVI RAMESH BABU,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the addition made of Rs

ITA 52/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-2(1), Vs. Ravi Ramesh Babu, Vijayawada. D.No.24-16-12/28, F.F.2, Vasantha Apartments, Near Loyola College, Vijayawada Pan No. Adtpr 1314 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.S.R. Prasad – CAFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…d is not in doubt. The only other issue remains to be examined is whether the genuineness the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. (Ravi Ramesh Babu) Various courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 689 and CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (86 ITR 549), have held that there cannot be a hard and fast rule for determination of a capital or revenue expenditure. The nature of expenditure can only be determined from the actual facts of the case. In the appellants case, as borne out in the remand report, the E- Cards are nothing but transmission of money in…

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3